Difference between spec and test suite in regards to `ASC_CDL` `style` about aces-docs HOT 2 CLOSED

Once again, your attention to detail and suggested fixes are appreciated.

Not quite sure how the "required" slipped into the style attribute under ASC_CDL. However, I think the intent was for it to be optional, and assume if it is not present that the "Fwd" style was desired. This is how it was written in the schema and in the test files, so I think the spec was in error. I have tried to add some clarification on this intended behavior.

I think all your other suggestions were valid so I've put them all in. This spec will be heading toward standardization through SMPTE, so ironing out these little typos are very helpful. (Side note: It will also be useful when I can figure out how to add equation numbers in mkdocs for explicit reference rather than saying "the above" or "the below" equations...)

from aces-docs.

Thank you for the quick fix 😊

This spec will be heading toward standardization through SMPTE

I was a bit wondering if many people would be looking at the spec in the future and if it was really useful to make you update it, but I'm glad to know it's worth it 😁

from aces-docs.